This problem surfaced somewhere else a while ago, but I'm not sure where, exactly, but there was a few solutions on offer, excluding ice.

The greater question would be why?

If it's a commercial request, can you convince the client to settle for perspex mannies? I remember thinking that the smaller-than-real ones they used to use for exotic lingerie in various stores looked far more beautiful than anything real that I ever saw.

Wireframe mannequin and you will have to photoshop just a few wires that are showing.

And where exactly would you buy such a mannequin? I've tried looking for one online in the past, but haven't been successful in finding anything like that. The closest I've gotten is reading somewhere that sartorial mannequins have wireframes inside them, is that what you mean?

That's another question Try to google metal dress form.If you can't find anything suitable you might have to order a custom one at a metal workshop.Maybe you can bring them a suitable dress form and they will measure it and weld the wireframe accordingly.

I don't have one nor I used one before. That was just my solution to your problem.

I hate this! Most of my clients find it totally ugly as well. Unfortunately every magazine is copying each other with this and polluting their pages. This is hopefully one of those things that will go away very soon. Where are the days you had to have Abercrombie styling To get your products into the magazines you have to have this 3D thingy at this moment.

Don't waste your time with perspex mannequins, the back side will be garbled and the image even more ugly. All the contraptions give you issue with the form, unless you client doesn't mind about this. Especially the shoulder area is becoming a nuisance. Which ofcourse you can fix in PS afterwards and you probably will when the client rejects what you have done. Most of my clients would have rejected your example, I can already hear their remarks. Bottom is schewed, shoulders are square, underside of the sleeves is not straight, etc..

I do it shooting on a mannequin, shoot it flat on the floor and blend it in PS. Yes, your post production work takes longer but the shoot & styling will take a lot less time, even though you have to shoot twice. The results are also much better.

I also prefer life models, even if it means cutting their heads off (in the image) to prevent having to pay them more money.

I hate this! Most of my clients find it totally ugly as well. Unfortunately every magazine is copying each other with this and polluting their pages. This is hopefully one of those things that will go away very soon. Where are the days you had to have Abercrombie styling To get your products into the magazines you have to have this 3D thingy at this moment.

Don't waste your time with perspex mannequins, the back side will be garbled and the image even more ugly. All the contraptions give you issue with the form, unless you client doesn't mind about this. Especially the shoulder area is becoming a nuisance. Which ofcourse you can fix in PS afterwards and you probably will when the client rejects what you have done.

I do it shooting on a mannequin, shoot it flat on the floor and blend it in PS. Yes, your post production work takes longer but the shoot & styling will take a lot less time, even though you have to shoot twice. The results are also much better.

I agree that that PS seems like the best option in most cases, but then I come across certain garments that would be a total nightmare with this technique. I'm also not convinced by the whole wireframe thing, there are just too many thin garments where something like that would deform the shape and also show through. I just find it hard to believe that people think it's worth spending this much post production time on just one garment, which leads me to believe there must be some other easier option. Especially in situations where you are shooting hundreds, if not thousands of pictures per month. But I haven't come across it yet. I might try and convince my employer to go with either straight up mannequins or preferably actual models. It looks better and I'm 100% sure it's more economic too.

I charge triple the amount for 3D that I would normally do for flat. I also advice clients to have a careful look at what they want to do this way, this way I prevent having to the nightmare things of which you know upfront it will become horrendous. Normally from a collection of a couple of hundred items I only do 50 or so this way. These go on press CD-roms.

I find it pretty obvious that the ones that do their entire collection. eg. for on webshops have it done on the cheap (it was still a sizeable chunk of money probably) and it shows!

Actually when you get the hang of it, it isn't even that bad doing it in post. As long as you remember to lay-out the garments on the floor a bit wider and make it just a tad bigger than what you need to blend in.

Get a display mannequin one that is hollow and maybe even transparent. Cut out the neck and parts of the chest (depending on how low the cleavage will go) and as much of the back that you can get away with (it still needs to support some parts). Post production will be to remove wherever it shows through, but generally a lot less than shooting the back separately and photoshopping it.